Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Year
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Playing The Game Of International Law, Uri Weiss, Joseph Agassi
Playing The Game Of International Law, Uri Weiss, Joseph Agassi
Touro Law Review
In the realist game of international negotiations, each state attempts to promote their interest regardless of international law. Thus, it is negotiations in the shadow of the sword, i.e., a negotiation in which each side knows that if the parties will not achieve an agreement, the alternative may be a war, and thus the bargaining position of each party is a function of their capacities in a case of war. Negotiation in the shadow of international law is an alternative to it: in this alternative the parties negotiate according to their international legal rights. It reduces injustice and incentive to …
If We Don’T Bring Them To Court, The Terrorists Will Have Won: Reinvigorating The Anti-Terrorist Act And General Jurisdiction In A Post-Daimler Era, Stephen J. Digregoria
If We Don’T Bring Them To Court, The Terrorists Will Have Won: Reinvigorating The Anti-Terrorist Act And General Jurisdiction In A Post-Daimler Era, Stephen J. Digregoria
Brooklyn Law Review
Prior to the Supreme Court's recent general personal jurisdiction decisions in Daimler AG v. Bauman and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown American terror victims, injured in terror attacks abroad, were able to bring their attackers and those who sponsor them into United States courts for relief. Specifically, groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (the PA) had a history of being sued by American victims of terror. In the course of these suits, the PLO and the PA were regularly found subject to the personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts under a theory of …
Prosecuting The Material Support Of Terrorism: Federal Courts, Military Commissions, Or Both?, P. Scott Rufener
Prosecuting The Material Support Of Terrorism: Federal Courts, Military Commissions, Or Both?, P. Scott Rufener
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This note argues that given the recent changes in the 2009 MCA the overall scheme for prosecuting material support of terrorism offenses is satisfactory (i.e., material support crimes should remain under the jurisdiction of both forums), but that the jurisdiction of military commissions over material support offenses should be limited to those providing material support to further specific acts of terrorism (as opposed to generalized support) and to those giving aid to terrorists or foreign terrorist organizations (hereinafter ―FTOs) in active theaters of war.
Contemporary Uses Of Force Against Terrorism: The United States Response To Achille Lauro-Questions Of Jurisdiction And Its Exercise, Jeffrey A. Mccredie
Contemporary Uses Of Force Against Terrorism: The United States Response To Achille Lauro-Questions Of Jurisdiction And Its Exercise, Jeffrey A. Mccredie
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
Vladimir Putin And The Rule Of Law In Russia, Jeffrey Kahn
Vladimir Putin And The Rule Of Law In Russia, Jeffrey Kahn
Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law
No abstract provided.
“Bring[Ing] Our Enemies To Justice”: Terrorism And The Court, Anna Elazan
“Bring[Ing] Our Enemies To Justice”: Terrorism And The Court, Anna Elazan
Legislation and Policy Brief
This article focuses on the venue of Mohammad’s trial and is broken into three sections. The first section reviews the historical use of military tribunals. This section begins by looking at the basis for Presidential authority to authorize the use of military commissions. This section then outlines the first use of military commissions since World War II. President George W. Bush’s authorization parallels the provisions in President Franklin Roosevelt’s authorization of the use of commissions in the 1940s. However, following authorization, the military commissions were subject to judicial challenges and significant revision by Congress. Finally, this section tracks recent developments …
Countering Terrorism: From Wigged Judges To Helmeted Soldiers - Legal Perspectives On America's Counter-Terrorism Responses, Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto
Countering Terrorism: From Wigged Judges To Helmeted Soldiers - Legal Perspectives On America's Counter-Terrorism Responses, Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto
San Diego International Law Journal
This Article aims to evaluate the international legal perspectives attendant to U.S. counter-terrorism measures and policy and the attendant strictures an implications. Part II commences by grappling with the uneasy relationship that legal and political complexities have foisted on the UN's ability to address terrorism and the difficult issue of the definition of terrorism. Within the context of this part, the Article also addresses the two dominant counter-terrorism paradigms-law enforcement and conflict management. Part III oves on to evaluate the law enforcement paradigm which treats terrorism as a crime engaging domestic law enforcement. This part offers a discussion of the …
Antiterrorism Military Commissions: Courting Illegality, Jordan J. Paust
Antiterrorism Military Commissions: Courting Illegality, Jordan J. Paust
Michigan Journal of International Law
On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a sweeping and highly controversial Military Order for the purpose of creating military commissions with exclusive jurisdiction to try certain designated foreign nationals "for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws" relevant to any prior or future "acts of international terrorism." The Order reaches far beyond the congressional authorization given the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force," including "use of the United States Armed Forces," against those involved in the September 11th attack "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by …
United States V. Palestine Liberation Organization: Continued Confusion In Congressional Intent And The Hierarchy Of Norms, Andrew R. Horne
United States V. Palestine Liberation Organization: Continued Confusion In Congressional Intent And The Hierarchy Of Norms, Andrew R. Horne
Michigan Journal of International Law
This Note concludes that while the court's rationale is disingenuous and misleading, the final decision was an appropriate reaffirmation of the importance which American jurisprudence places on international obligations. In Part One, this Note discusses whether the dispute resolution provisions of the Headquarters Agreement precluded the district court's jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case. Part Two examines the constitutional hierarchy of the ATA and the Headquarters Agreement to determine which should govern this dispute. If the court had concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, the case would have been dismissed from the U.S. court system, leaving the …
Recent Development--U.S. Legislation To Prosecute Terrorists: Antiterrorism Or Legalized Kidnapping?, Catherine C. Fisher
Recent Development--U.S. Legislation To Prosecute Terrorists: Antiterrorism Or Legalized Kidnapping?, Catherine C. Fisher
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
This Recent Development examines the jurisdictional bases for the proposed extraterritorial extension of The Terrorist Prosecution Act to crimes that do not occur within the territory of the United States and to persons who are not United States citizens. The historical basis for allowing the prosecution of persons who have been forcibly brought into the court's jurisdiction and constitutional due process concerns that accompany such enforcement means are also detailed. Also discussed is the potential conflict between the Act and United States foreign relations law, particularly with respect to the possible forceful intrusion by the United States upon another state's …
Constitutional Law-Saboteurs And The Jurisdiction Of Military Commissions, George T. Schilling
Constitutional Law-Saboteurs And The Jurisdiction Of Military Commissions, George T. Schilling
Michigan Law Review
The jurisdiction of military tribunals in the United States has troubled political and legal writers since the days of the Revolution. Decided cases are not numerous. The boundaries separating military and civil jurisdiction are not precise. Observations of the plight of oppressed peoples in other lands as well as the conception of total war and the course of action necessary for survival warrant a reexamination and reappraisal of our constitutional guarantees, which were in part based upon and reflect a fear of tyrannical military rule. A pronouncement of the Supreme Court of the United States in this field is, therefore, …